User talk:Bazzajf

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bazzajf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Excessive sanction unwarranted and ill-founded, please refer to evidence

Decline reason:

Clearly uncivil behavior immediately after being unblocked, and a long history of problems.

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thank you for experimenting with the page

This is not a democracy. This is a serious attempt at creating a respectable encyclopedia. We want everyone to contribute positively, but we won't tolerate nonsense, abuse, etc. Your edit, "Carlsberg don't do cities but if they did, then Limerick would probably...." makes no sense, and does not contribute to the encyclopedia value of the

welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 14:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

By all means, then, explain what your edit means. First of all, it makes no grammatical sense, and means nothing to anyone who is not familiar with it. Wikipedia tries to represent a world view, so if you can rephrase it, and explain it, then perhaps it can be included in the article. If you're simply looking to pick a fight, then good day to you. - CobaltBlueTony 14:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am openly and honestly trying to engage you in understanding your edit. If it is indeed an essential element of Limerick, and noteworthy, then why would we not want it to be included? I'll ask you again, please elucidate your edit and explain it to me, and I can help you find an effective way to include it if it is indeed worth of mention. This process of discussion assists us in including information which may otherwise be overlooked.

I apologize if you considered my response summarily judgemental. I work hard to fight

opinionated edits to keep Wikipedia encyclopedia and neutral. Since your edit seemed opinionated, but at the least grammatically nonsensical, I reverted it. If you believe it should be included, then discuss it with me. I am not an administrator; vandalism reversion is the privilege of every editor! And so is discussion, to 'fight' for your views to be proplery and accurately represented if it is deemed encyclopedia and noteworthy. Please do not become so quickly discouraged, or you will not develop the skills and talents valued in good Wikipedians. Best wishes! - CobaltBlueTony 15:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Please stop adding {{POV}} to the article on Wales. There is a clear consensus on this issue, as shown by the discussion on the talk page. --Stemonitis 08:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

three revert rule violation here. Vashti 12:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Your use of the word "alleged" in Sol Campbell is totally useless unless you provide details of who is doing the alleging; without that context then your additions are mere repetition of the same rumours, which from the point of view of libel law is no different from making the allegation yourself. Wikipedia has come under a lot of flak recently for possible defamations, which highlight how important it is that Wikipedia's content is accurate and verifiable.

Your recent edits to this article are not only unsourced, but contravene several Wikipedia policies and guidelines: The use of

Yes I am an Arsenal fan, but my main concern here is that Wikipedia is accurate. I couldn't care less about Campbell's sexuality, and if there was any verifiable truth to the edits you made I would be fine with their inclusion. But there isn't any discernible truth, which is why I object.

I don't think you really are aware of the ramifications of your edits; if you were, you would put it on your own website and put your own name to them, rather than anonymously posting them here wrapped in weasel words and letting Wikipedia deal with any potential flak. I'll quit "pontificating" when you start playing by the rules here. Qwghlm 11:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't speak on Irish law, the precedent set in English law is that repetition of an allegation is regarded as equal to making the allegation yourself; this BBC guide (and in particular this section) is quite a good primer, and makes clear that merely adding "alleged" or similar words makes little difference. Qwghlm 12:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just a quick warning to say that if you continue to vandalise User:Stemonitis's user page (editing it after he's asked you to stop, and inserting nonsense letters into the text, is vandalism), I'll be reporting you for it. This is likely to lead to your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. I suggest you stop. Vashti 16:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<User:Nlu|Nlu]] (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kim,

I move that the edit-freeze be unlocked as I believe I have made my point, what with my neutrality flag being frozen in the article long enough now. I move that with the overwhelming consensus of opinion against me (even with sockpuppets in play) the neutrality flag be de-activated and the edit function restored. I vow not to flag the music section in this article again unless provoked into doing so by ungracious comments. I reserve the right to maintain my point of view about the subjectivity of this section but I uphold to defer to the majority as my point has been well-established and my neutrality flag maintaining its' presence is synonymous with this point. I thank you all for an engaging debate and I look forward to hopefully supporting your views in the future. Thanks once again. Bazzajf 16:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I will unblock the page. Edit warring is not the way to resolve things, it results in freezing pages. That a majority is disagreeing does not say it is correct, and if you have good reliable sources, talk about it. If the discussion at the talk page does not work out, use

WP:RFC and related options, that will work better in the end than edit warring. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

You continue to alter my user page despite my requests for you not to. Your edit summary of "factual amendment" is false — this is an issue of terminology, not facts. You show no interest in engaging in discussion, but prefer to instigate edit wars. Please desist. --Stemonitis 10:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken (again). I am happy to engage in discussion, however it is getting me nowhere in light of your refusal to accept the stark facts, my edit summary is correct, ultimately truth is reflected in legal provisions and legally a reference to the islands of Ireland and U.K. is provided for by the definition "British & Irish" Isles. You were the one who ended the discussion on the topic concerned, with an expression of boredom which suggested to me you had nothing to counter-debate the stark reality of the situation. I will possibly continue making the factual adjustments on your userpage but more infrequently. I don't understand why you won't revert to the legal description, you are letting personality clashes get in the way of facts, egos shouldn't compromise the truth. Am I correct in stating it would not be too much work for you to revert to my version or are their difficulties in upholding the link? Be a man and swallow your pride in the interest of truth please Stemonitis. Thank you for your time and patience. Bazzajf 10:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Legally"? Under what law? Even if you mean Irish law, then that does not apply to Wikipedia (which is not situated in Ireland).
• Furthermore, Wikipedia follows
  common usage
  , not the phraseology preferred by lawmakers. "British and Irish Isles" is not widely used (used, yes, but not widely, and certainly not as much as "British Isles").
• At the risk of repeating myself, this is a question of terminology, not of facts: no-one disputes where the mountains in question are located, which would be a factual discussion.
• To answer your question, yes, there are problems with your version of the page. It simply doesn't work! The links are broken, nullifying the whole point of having them there. The only questionable benefit of your change is that you are not offended by it. Every other aspect of it is bad: it is a less widely-used name, the name is less concise, the links become broken, it's not how I want it to be, and, finally, it's a waste of your time and effort to make it.
• Your efforts would be better placed in debates where it matters. My user page is not an integral part of the encyclopædia, and carries no weight. I don't mind you having an opinion, nor even your stating it in the appropriate places, but vandalising my user page (since it must be construed as vandalism) is unacceptable, and is likely to lead only to your being blocked again.
• Only one person wants your change made, but so far several independent users have been involved in restoring the page to my preferred version. If you cannot accept this kind of consensus (as the Wales debate would seem to suggest), then perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you. --Stemonitis 10:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your ignorance is all too apparent now.

• The term "British & Irish" Isles is provided for in English and in Irish Law, nowhere is the term "British Isles" provided for in law.

• WP also follows the principle of not using terms which are offensive, especially when the legal and factual term is largely similar and requires little extra effort to print".

• I agree it is a question of terminology and the terminology you use(without wishing to repeat myself) is wholly inappropriate and offensive not only to me but the citizens of the sovereign State of the Republic of Ireland, I know this because I speak with them, work with them and mix with them socially, just because they do not use WP does not deny the reality that many of my fellow citizens are offended by the term, not only is the terminology you use in this case inappropriate and offensive, it is legally and factually incorrect in both of the jurisdictions concerned to which you refer.

• I am sorry that the links are broken and rendered unworkable. The other points you make about the reference being less concise and widely-used etc. are not only very much debatable but do not justify its' usage.

• I will put my point of view across in any forum I see fit, whether that be a forum of 3 people or 3 million people is my decision and I shall not be lectured to on how to exercise my freedom of expression and speech. Sometimes "vandalism" is the only recourse against ignorance, stubborness and egomania.

• You are making another subjective assertion, the employment of sockpuppets is a tactic widely used by ones of a higher ego and insecurity to develop and give the perception of a consensus when none, or at the least an ambiguously minor one exists and for you to have the nerve to pontificate to me about one's suitability for WP is analagous to George Galloway lecturing to Kofi Annan on political sophistication and being "statesmanlike".

Bazzajf 11:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are warned to stop harassing Stemonitis. I have protected his userpage, and any further fiddling (however inoffensive you consider it) relative to him or his edits will be met with a block. Please consider taking a non-disruptive approach to Wikipedia. Syrthiss 15:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I have not yet blocked you is that I did one of the reverts myself. However, next revert, I will do it because by that time, you are at 6RR (and no, they do not have to be the exact same reverts!). Furthermore, watch your language, your langauge is not making you a lot of friends. Wikiepdia can be a really nice place, but if you repeatedly bump into admins for violations of basic policies, it becomes very quickly something else. It is up to you. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for reporting you to 3RR when I was in violation myself (inadvertantly, but still in violation). I should have gone about it differently, and having you blocked was not the ideal solution. When your block expires, I urge you to discuss the issue on the Talk:Jeb Bush page, so that we don't again end up with multiple people reverting your reversions as we did before. For my part, I will not revert your edits to that page again until a clear consensus is developed on the talk page. I hope you find this satisfactory. Powers 12:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[1] made on

UTC) to Jeb Bush

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule . Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 18:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too thought it was unjust to not block both of you equally per the written policy, but looking at the clock, the block time would have now passed and the other editor has honored his 24hrs block as if it had been imposed. Please consider moving ahead. Can I help to try to work with you both on fixing up this article? (caveat: I'm probably too politically charged with Florida politics to really mix up in a content dispute :( ) --Flawiki 01:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of

I've blocked you for 12h for incivility. You've been warned; please calm down a bit William M. Connolley 13:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ndáil le Nóta seo, Cen Fath? Abair liom cad chuige, mar, go dtí seo ní raibh fios agam túsa. Agus, ár do Leathanach baile, tá bréige o an Template a dheana mé go bunaidh anseo.--Irishpunktom\^talk 15:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why won't you answer me?--Irishpunktom\^talk 12:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are political motivations behind your contributions. I think that's a fair analysis. Is that a good enough freagra for you?? Bazzajf 12:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the political motivation behind the Template I created, an imitation of which currently resides on your very own user page? --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "There are political motivations behind your contributions", obviously I didn't mean every one of them but some of them so stop being so pedantic and so f*ckin what if I am using that template, that is the purpose of it after all!!Bazzajf 14:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said it was "laughable" that I be considered a "bonafide wikipedian" you claimed my "only interest is to advance his own political view". Do you now withdraw this statement? --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't withdraw my statement, what I said was true, just because you do a few standard non-sensitive contributions does not take away from the crux of the issue that your central objective here is politically motivated. Now, I ask you to withdraw your request for my withdrawal of my statement. Bazzajf 15:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err.. OK.. I withdraw my question. Odd. Anyway, when you said my "only interest", perhaps you actually meant "My main interest"? no? Also, what political points have my edits to Babur, the Mughal Empire, and Humayun made? In fact, which edits have furthered a politcal cause.. and what is the political cause I am attempting to further here? - I honestly don't see it (but, then again, maybe I wouldn't!) --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you're fantastic, are you happy now, I have time to be debating, I have a World Cup to watch, see ye round. Bazzajf 15:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather you jsut told me where I'm going wrong so I can work to fix it. kick off is in half an hour anyway. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave Stemonitis alone. He/she clearly doesn't want your comments on the talk page, and calling someone a bigot is a personal attack and can result in another block from editing. I realize you are passionate about this subject, but the behavior you are exhibiting here usually has only one result: a community ban on your account from editing. Please be more mindful about how you conduct yourself here. Syrthiss 11:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes personal attacks are warranted and the fact that he won't make a simple change on his userpage to the legally accepted politically neutral term reflects his anti-Irish bias in this context and hence his bigotry so don't fu*kin come on here and lecture me about what's fu*kin right and wrong cos' I'll tell you what is wrong - political pig-headed bigotry and if I'm banned for expressing my opposition to that, well then go ahead and f*ckin well ban me you clown!! Bazzajf 12:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its his userpage. I could see your side if he had a giant rotating banner that said 'Irish are f*ckers', but I'm afraid I don't see it in this case. We all have biases... He could complain that your pro irish bias is clouding your judgement, but he hasn't (at least that I've seen). Personal attacks are never warranted at Wikipedia. NEVER. However, I'm a bit thicker skinned... Clowns are kind of fun. Syrthiss 12:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, your argument is ridiculous, How could anyone complain about a pro-Irish bias or my judgement being clouded in me stating that the islands of Ireland and the U.K. should be referred to as their legal and factual name. So I'll call you a clown again seeing as you enjoyed the label so much first time around you clown. Bazzajf 12:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for personal attacks per warnings above. Syrthiss 14:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even give me a formal warning, not to mention a final warning, should you have done so, I would of refrained from headlineing what I perceived as another user's use of poltically offensive and incorrect terminology for all to see and that user's politically motivated bigoted reluctance to make a simple and painless amendment. I ask you to reconsider your action in light of the fact that I commit to not amending that user's discussion page once I am formally warned. Further more it is a discussion page where I have the right to discuss my point of view which in this case was headlineing what I perceive as the bigotry of that user. I don't think your action is justified in any way, again I ask you to reconsider and I commit to desisting this action I have been punished for upon receipt of a formal warning. Thank you. Bazzajf 14:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "calling someone a bigot is a personal attack and can result in another block from editing" wasn't clear enough. That was your warning. Powers 14:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That in no way can be construed as a formal and official warning, that I took as suggestive advice, and what's more if were to take that as a formal warning which in no rational way you could, there was no final warning to follow this which is WP policy, there was also no official outlining to me of the length of the ban. This admin Syrthiss is totally inept. Bazzajf 10:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 10:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you still have several days on your block, if you wish to add to the case during that time you can email the arbitrators with your information. Syrthiss 14:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F**K off Syrthiss, I have no interest in dealing with unreasonable arseholes of which you are the epitome of, my only wish to engage with you would be in the business of personal attacks because you are such an unreasonable f**kwit but I just couldn't be bothered. I am now officially warning you off my userpage, I do not want your comments here because I see you as engaging in unreasonable and biased actions against me. Please note I do not want you fiddling with my userpage in any fashion, a reply to this as far as Im concerned will be considered vandalism as I do not wish to communicate with you in any sense of the word. As for user POWERs you are free to reply here as you have been reasonable at certain times. My answer to you is that I was never formally warned and my personal attack was rationally motivated and warranted in the circumstances which you seemingly failed to investigate, political offence in this circumstance was deemed bigotry by me and if you investigated further the user I accused states that he has no problem with this description and reserves the right to maintain my "comment" on his userpage, presumably because he deems it rational unlike you lot.

Bazzajf 15:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what I investigated or not. A personal attack is never warranted on Wikipedia. If you wish to continue making them, you are likely to earn a permanent block. That's not a threat, just a statement of what is likely to occur. Powers 00:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record: I by no means agree with your statement on my user page, but I maintain your right to say it. To state that I have "no problem with [the] description" is stretching the truth. I deny all "political bias and bigotry"; I deny any "anti-Irish bias". I consider your statements therefore untrue, but, as I say, I will allow you to express them if you must. --Stemonitis 09:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with it, remove it, if you consider it untrue, remove it. It is a simple change to your userpage that you are unwilling to make and the motivations and reasons behind this unwillingness form the basis for my rational conclusions. It's a bigoted use of terminology, it has been explained to you that it has caused offence and the reasons why it causes offence but you insist on maintaining its use despite the bigotry that it and hence you exude. Bazzajf 12:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bazzajf, don't get me wrong. I know you're a human being and I wish you all the best. However, your constant edit warring on user pages (and elsewhere), your generally arrogant attitude, and your mind-numbing self-righteousness can all get tiring very quickly. I don't know if you exhibit similar personality traits in your personal life, but if you do, you're going to have to do some deeply serious soul-searching before you will ever be capable of giving AND receiving love and appreciation. Please, my good friend, get a life. 152.163.100.136 12:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Get a life" - What a fantastic suggestion, you really come up with original insults my good fellow. Here's my suggestion to you "Get a Username" because you are just hiding behind a dynamic IP like a cowardly worm and I am certain you exhibit cowardice in real life. You are obviously a sockpuppet of somebody I have been in dispute with in the past and you strike me as being very bitter and depressed about it. Cheer up buddy, there are organisations you can turn to. I won't insult you this time because by the sounds of thing you would probably jump off a cliff if I did. I am sorry for your troubles and I feel sorry for you. Yes, I have a heart. Bazzajf 13:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have come to the conclusion, having reviewed some striking sources of evidence that the anonymous dynamic IP address user (152.163.100.136) above, is in fact Vashti and what a sad individual he/she is to be hiding behind an IP and to be afraid of standing up for oneself, also resorting to long-winded insults which my page has now been protected against. This reflects a very sad mentality and an inability to debate the issues very well, a lack of confidence in oneself overall, I would suggest. Bazzajf 12:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you're currently blocked for making personal attacks, you're not doing yourself any favors by continuing to engage in them while blocked. Powers 13:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, memo to self, "Start doing myself more favours". Fantastic advice, you should be a life coach. Bazzajf 13:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, you are quite wrong. Vashti 17:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I don't place any credibilty on your words or actions so please for the last time, do not place any comments on my userpage, I am warning you off this userpage indefinitely, any breach of this may be reported. I have no need or want for communication with someone like you. Apathy is the best word to describe the upshot of communication with you so clear off and stir apathy elsewhere. Good boy. Bazzajf 09:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than happy to stay off your userpage, although I will continue to counter any personal attacks you choose to post up about me. Please, do report any breaches of policy you feel I may have committed. Vashti 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who Vishanti is, but I do know that your responses to my good wishes (the initial post) have pretty much proved my point. PLEASE calm down and re-evaluate your life, values, and overall personality. I'm worried about you, and other people like you. 152.163.100.136 16:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're not Vashti, even though I'm certain he uses sockpuppetry but keep your comments coming Mr. Anonymous Coward, I find them hilarious. I quote "PLEASE calm down and re-evaluate your life, values, and overall personality." Hehehehehehe, I think you need to calm down yourself and stop taking things so seriously, oh and try and stand up for yourself a small bit and quit the hiding thing, you are differently suffering from a lack of confidence and low self-esteem. Your IP userpage is vandal heaven of which I'm confident you are at least partly responsible, you may well be some scitzo screw-up but you are entertaining me with your profound words and commentary so keep it coming. Bazzajf 22:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, it's Mr. Anonymous Coward again! I appreciate your continued responses and I look forward to a "spirited debate," to borrow a term from your favorite U.S. President. I do need to point out the irony of one of your comments: "You are obviously a sockpuppet of somebody I have been in dispute with in the past." Why ironic, or at least comic? Because this statement of yours was in response to my own warnings to you about your destructive personality traits, ones which can indeed lead to multiple bitter disputes. Are you 100% confident you don't want to do a little healthy soul-searching and think about why so many people are hostile to you on Wikipedia, and why you were blocked? It couldn't POSSIBLY be your fault some of the time.............could it??? 205.188.116.71 02:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never my fault, I'm always right sure. Anyway that contribution wasn't profound enough Mr. A.C., you getting dangerously light-hearted when it comes to assessing people through WP edits. Here's something for you. Why are so reluctant to sign in using a Username? I could suggest myriad reasons but I will spare you on this occasion and allow you to answer me without my prejudice. Bazzajf 11:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. A.C. here! (I find the way you abbreviated my name to be quite affectionate.) Your proclamation of "never my fault" indicates that we have a lot more work to do, but I am patient, and I am here for you. I have no username because I am not a regular Wikipedia editor. Rather, I am YOUR own personal guardian angel, who has flown in on translucent wings to help you turn your life around. A mere username would be trivial compared with the task at hand. Now, where should we start? What is the first personality trait of yours that you wouldn't mind examining, if only tentatively? 205.188.116.71 12:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infallibility Bazzajf 12:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GOOD ANSWER! That's an excellent place to start with our life-changing psychoanalysis and spiritual rebirth. OK, so what is it about this stated personality trait that you like the most, and what about it may be undesirable? 152.163.100.136 15:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following text is from

Administrators can be removed if they misuse their powers. Currently, administrators may be removed either at the request of Jimbo Wales or by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee. At their discretion, lesser penalties may also be assessed against problematic administrators, including the restriction of their use of certain powers or placement on administrative probation. The technical ability to remove administrator status rests with stewards.

See also:

• Requests for comment/User conduct: Use of administrator privileges
• Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship

Thanks for the information. Bazzajf 15:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 23:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a nice day. Adam 04:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stalking you; you just happened to insult someone on a talk page that happens to be on my watchlist. Fortunately for you, I don't take "

You removed a large amount of sourced material from Henry Jackson without discussion, which was reverted. This material has been discussed ad infinitum on the talk page by many editors, and the current consensus is that it should stay. If you want to change that consensus, please feel free to contribute to the talk page. - Merzbow 17:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already have contributed ad nauseum to the discussion page you fuckwit and who are you to judge what consensus is?Bazzajf 19:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA. Powers 19:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

You're like a broken record. Bore elsewhere please. Thanks. Bazzajf 21:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a month off. Use the time to read

A month, is this some sort of joke? Harassment? What the? Are you smoking dope and passing off your time as a WP administrator at the same time? Jusitfy your actions man cos' I am bemused. Bazzajf 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're like a broken record. Bore elsewhere please. Thanks. Bazzajf 21:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Only two lines above. I suggest you just sit this month out and take some time away from Wikipedia. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 21:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kid, don't answer on someone else's behalf, to answer your dumb suggestion, I don't spend much time on WP anyway so it's not a problem, let me suggest you but out of my affairs and pi*s off elsewhere. Thank you Bazzajf 21:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then let me enforce your break more by protecting your usertalk page to stop you from insulting people. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You now have two months off. Use the time to read

This case is closed and the result has been published at the link above. 8bitjake is banned from editing articles about poltical figures from Washington State, and he is placed on

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 20:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by continued disruption. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead.

You have come back from your block and have made precisely two edits, both of which are uncivil. Are you actually intending to contribute to the encyclopaedia in any way? I am going to unprotect your Talk page to allow you to respond, but please be aware that you are currently blocked until we can establish whether you are here to play at trolls or whether you intend to contribute in a meaningful way. Guy 11:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this some sort of joke? I have just been re-instated and my first edit was naturally enough on still seeing my talkpage blocked to ask the person to unblock it like he should have done 5 days ago and the 2nd was to an Irish pal of mine to contribute to an article about a band in which I think he could contribute very well because he did such a fine job on contributing to a similar article on a Dublin band "The Frames". This block is unbelievable, I am totally flabbergasted to be blocked for this. I could easily get around this and set up a new user name on my dynamic IP on my home PC but that is not my style and I will stand over and sign my records irrespective of past blocks etc. Please refer this situation on to other admins for their comments as this is blocking policy exceedingly above and beyond what is merited. Unreal....Bazzajf 12:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, a threat to evade the block, and you think you can get unblocked. Now that is what you can call unreal. --Lord Deskana (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a threat? If anything, it is a commitment to not doing so, if you are trying to rise me into reacting angrily to your ill-advised comments, it won't work on this occasion so keep the bait to yourself.Bazzajf 12:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bazzajf, your first two edits were both to user talk pages and were both uncivil. Given your history, this is a clear warning sign. I repeat my question: is it your intention to cease the trolling and disputation which got you blocked in the first place, or not? I don't know what your past is with Deskana, but you will see that I did unprotect your talk page so that dialogue can commence, and I did post this on the administrators' noticeboard for review. I am doing my best to assume good faith here, please do me the courtesy of reciprocating. I also suggest that you and Deskana leave each other alone for a while, since you evidently have history. Posting an aggressive demand to have your talk unlocked was pretty stupid, though - the chances of success are dramatically increased when you ask nicely, I always find. Guy 12:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have jusy implicitly called me "stupid" when I have never had any dealings with you so why am I being lectured about civility? I don't even know Deskana and have had very few dealings with him bar his unreasonable and uncalled for interventions in my business on one occasion. I contacted him to remove the block on my user talkpage because he placed it there and never removed it despite my return as an active User. My disputes on WP have always been on article content and POV, why is this seen as trolling? I am entitled to put across my POV on an article's discussion page and edit articles in a manner I deem fair and reasonable, that is part and parcel of WP. I am happy to leave the guy alone once he stops stalking me for no apparent reason. In summation, I don't troll and have no interest in doing so, however I am often in dispute and also in agreement with users on article POV and editing reversions. If this form of disputation is never allowed on WP, then I suggest I am banned indefinitely because sometimes I disagree with POV and edit reversion on certain articles.Bazzajf 13:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to share with you a word of wisdom: "when you are in a hole, stop digging." I asked, politely I thought, if you were interested in contributing to the encyclopaedia, rather than just trolling and arguing (which is what got you blocked and your talk page locked). Your allegation of stalking is completely absurd - you posted on Deskana's talk page. May I take it that you are here just to argue? Or are you going to calm down? Guy 14:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His addition to my page is far from the worst, don't block him on account of that. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not the worst, but neither was it civil. If it was as blatant as some of the other stuff he's posted then I wouldn't bother to go to the trouble of trying to find out if he's interested in contributing still. Guy 14:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly calm, allow me to share some advice with you "don't make assumptions on other's behalf." I have already answered your question, let me repeat it seeing as it failed to be grasped the first time. I have no interest in trolling, however disputation which is unfortunate is a by-product of differing opinions on POV and edit reversion. In relation to the stalking issue, the term "stalking" in this case may be excessive but it sprang to mind at the time given that the person in question intervened on more than one occasion in my business unnecessarily and further more give his tupence worth on the admin noticeboard notwithstanding his conflict of interest, hence the stalking allegation, albeit excessive. Listen, do what you want to do, I'm weary of having to explain myself and defend 1) a justifiable comment and request of a negligent admin who failed to unblock my talkpage when he should of because of a personal grievance and 2) a request to a fellow user who I know to be of good standing on musical articles to contribute on one occasion to an article on an Irish band, the same user took no umbrage from said request and is seemingly as bemused as me by all of this.

Like I said, do what you need to do. Bazzajf 14:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calm is not a word which I would use to describe your comments thus far. For example, saying that a "negligent" admin and "personal grievance" when it's equally possible said admin just forgot - you could have posted to the

WP:RFPP or the admin noticeboard instead of writing strident demands on Deskana's talk. What did you expect? If you really think Deskana harbours a grudge, what good result was likely to come form that comment? I am genuinely puzzled that you apparently believe this was smart. And to back that up by an accusation of stalking, when you had invited comment by posting at his Talk page - well, that really takes the biscuit. And as I stated above, I didn't block you on account of your pointlessly aggressive comment on Irishpunktom's page, but because you returned from a block and started off with two incivil remarks on user talk pages, which looks a lot like the kind of thing that got you blocked in the first place. But I was not convinced that this was anythign more than sour grapes, so I came along here, unprotected your talk page and asked you if you are prepared to contribute in a more collegiate manner, without bullying and aggression. I was catually trying to help you avoid being kicked off the project, believe it or not. I think I'll ask the AMA to send someone along. Guy 22:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Listen carefully,in relation to leaving a message on Deskanna or whoever it is talkpage, there was no personal attack, i told him to hurry to unblock my page as whether you like it or not he was negligent, read the bloody message again, as to whether it was smart or not, I am not here to compromise myself, I am decent and mannerly to people if they treat me in an evcen-handed manner. In relation to the "stalking" matter you have got it completely wrong so try and take in what I say this time, he intervened unnecessarily in my business on more than one occasion in the past irrespective of what happened yesterday.

In relation to my second comment, to ask a user to contribute to an article on one occasion - "for once" imploring him to have a look at it, and in turn implicitly complementing him on his contribution to a similar music article and same user taking no umbrage from it being classed as incivility is a judgement from the clown court and I'm laughing. Keep it up.Bazzajf 07:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was a personal attack, I said it was trolling and uncivil, which it was. There is nothing wrong with an admin checking out an editor's contributions if he sees evidence of problem behaviour, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitJake indicates that he was not wrong there. If you are looking to persuade people that you are going to be a productive editor, coming back form a long blosk and starting with two aggressive posts to talk pages is not a great way to do that. Guy 06:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking to persuade anyone of anything. Why be disingenuous. I am being myself. The posts may be aggressive in your eyes but are quite tame in my eyes and in (at least) one of those who received the post's eyes. If those two posts qualify to enforce an indefinite ban, I can't say I'm surprised but it as as far from fair as one can imagine. Never mind. Bazzajf 09:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether the user(s) in question thought the comment(s) tame or not, it's whether you intend to maintain your aggressive posture when editing. Perhaps your view of what is not aggressive is at odds with

WP:CIVIL and your attitude is incompatible with Wikipedia policy. Guy 12:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Who made you the voice of WP policy? Who made you the judge of what qualifies as uncivil? Are you incapable of being rational and understanding that one might be a tad aggrieved if one was blocked for two months and yet the admin who was involved in blocking me maintained a block on my user page for several days longer than justified and for any reasonable adjudicator, the second comment of mine should not even be considered in all of this, it is too hilarious for words that that is being used as an example of over-aggressiveness! I suggest you refer this issue on to other administrators who may have a more rational grasp of the situation. I would normally thank someone for their time and attention but your time and attention on this matter is proving futile. Bazzajf 14:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia community made him "the voice of WP policy" and "the judge of what qualifies as uncivil", as they did with me. Why are you so worked up? The fact of the matter is, I protect a lot of pages, delete a lot of pages, block a lot of users, I can't be expected to remember every single one. And had you been a bit nicer to me on my talk page I would have unprotected your talk page immidiately. I feel no need to do anything for people who can't

assume good faith and say "Hey, I'm unblocked now and I would like it if you'd unprotect my talk page, I think you've forgotten about it". Cause that's exactly it, when I read your message on my talk page I couldn't even remember who you were, never mind protecting your talk page. There was no malice or calculation about it, no admin abuse, whatever you think of it. You accuse me of stalking you without recognising it is my job to watch users and sure they abide by policy. If you want to call this stalking, then yes, I stalk you, and a lot of other users. This is all I feel I need to say on the matter, expect no further responses or actions from me... --Lord Deskana (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, Bazzajf. I would like to try to help you understand why your statements "I will report you for admin abuse seeing as you are not up to speed and a bit inept in timing issues" and "Get a move on and do it" are not civil and resulted in your re-blocking. Do you see why someone might not like to be called "inept"? Do you see why Deskana might object to the threat of being reported for abuse of administrator powers? Do you think that threat was helpful in any way? Powers ^T 13:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can this block now be withdrawn please? I think the point has been made? This block has now continued for one week and the grounds on which it was imposed hardly justify a sanction of such severity? Can people direct me as to how one can go about referring others to this case if one deems external comments necessary such is the deemed unfairness of an administrator's sanction. Bazzajf 15:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bazzajf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Excessive sanction for harmless comments

Please include a decline or accept reason.

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

That you call those comments "harmless" goes to show that you still don't get the point. You talk about "a sanction of such severity" as if we're all being terribly hurtful to you by blocking you, but if your actions are hurtful to others, they're "harmless." In my opinion, you returned from a month-long block and started out by blatantly violating

WP:CIVIL, so a month wasn't long enough, and now isn't soon enough either. Mangojuice^talk 04:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Let me add to that that you've been blocked a LOT of times by now. Is there some kind of positive contribution you want to make to Wikipedia? I think it would be helpful if we could understand the up-side to eventually unblocking you. Mangojuice^talk 05:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All you have do is look at my edit history to realise the positive contribution I have to make to articles e.g. - Romania, Iceland, David Beckham, Jeb Bush, Steve Finnan, British & Irish Isles, Rocky etc., etc., etc., as for my referring to the two comments as harmless, that is exactly how the second one was received by irishpunktom and I don't think Deskana was too bothered or surprised at my annoyance over my user talkpage not being unblocked in a timely manner. I think a reality check is in order here, this is seriously baffling and totally unjustified.Bazzajf 08:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to enlighten mango, the block is not hurtful, if you read my comments, i said it was severe in that i thought it was excessive and unjustifiable with regard to the basis on which it was imposed so i think you are second-guessing my emotions and putting words in my mouth here when all I am simply saying is that the severity of the ban is unwarranted in my view, albeit biased. Clear?Bazzajf 08:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please indicate whether I am wasting my time appealing an indefinite block for what were two relatively tame comments in terms of icivility in my opinion. Do I have any further recourse or am I to forget about WP and move on? If as I expect, there is a nil response to this question, I take it that it is the latter? Thank you all and I hope you have a more fulfilling and productive time in the WP community than I seem to have done. I maintain an idefinite block imposed on the basis it was is totally unjustified. Alll the best. Bazzajf 08:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well now. I tried to recruit someone from the

AMA

to come along and help, but they didn't seem very interested. I have said this more than once, but I will say it again: you were not blocked for two comments, you were blocked because you have a long history of rpoblem comments, you were blocked for some time, and your first actions on returning were to post two uncivil comments. Can you not see how that might indicate that bringing you up short might be the smart thing? If those had been the only uncivil comments or problem edits you'd ever made, you probably wouldn't even have qualified for a warning. Blocking is preventative not retributive, I blocked you because I was concerned that we would see the pattern of past behaviour repeated.

Are you wasting your time? No, I hope not. If you had no history of productive edits then nobody would be taking any kind of trouble here. What is needed is some kind of indication that you accept that incivility is in the eye of the beholder, and that things which you likely dismiss as part of the cut and thrust of debate can be seen as highly offensive by others. In short, you need to acept the validity of many of the (numerous) criticisms which have been levelled against you over time. As soon as you are prepared to indicate (a) an acceptance that you have done wrong in the past and (b) a commitment not to repeat the problem behaviours, then I think progress can be made. I understand that you have strong feelings here, but it seems to me from the above and other contributions that you have been a loose cannon in the past, and before we let you loose again we need to be satisfied that you are going to give rather more consideration to the feelings of others, and stick to arguing the merits of an edit rather than those of an editor. I don't see it being much more complex than that myself. I'd be very happy to see you return to making good edits. Guy 11:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As would I. You could start by answering the questions I posed several days ago. You can find those questions above where I said "I would like to try to help you understand why your statements ... are not civil and resulted in your re-blocking." Powers ^T 12:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]